You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

June 10, 2016

Proposed Amendments to Thailand’s Trade Competition Act

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Recently, the Cabinet passed a resolution that amends Thailand’s Trade Competition Act B.E. 2542 (1999). The draft amended law has since been submitted to the National Legislative Assembly for further consideration. Businesses should be aware of and prepare for the major changes ahead, as the newly proposed law may become effective at the end of this year.

The Office of Thai Trade Competition Commission (OTCC) is the main enforcer of Thailand’s Trade Competition Act. Overall, the Act aims to regulate fair competition among business operators in the following key areas:

  • Unlawful exercise of market dominance;
  • A merger which may form a monopoly, causing unfair competition;
  • Collusion which forms a monopoly, restricting competition; and
  • Catch-all unfair trade practices.

The amended Trade Competition Act introduces more stringent and extensive provisions as well as higher penalties for violations. The Act, as currently drafted, will introduce the following key amendments:

The definition of “Business Operator” will be broadened.  Under the draft, “Business Operator” now includes affiliate companies as well as group companies. If a company within a company group engages in anticompetitive practices, the OTCC would focus its investigation on the entire group of companies, not only the individual company.

Violations committed outside Thailand are punishable.  Any violations of the Act which are committed outside of Thailand, whether partly or fully, that have an anticompetitive effect on Thailand would be punishable in Thailand. As a result, companies that previously relied on territorial divides to engage in anticompetitive behavior from overseas which have an anticompetitive effect on Thailand could now be subject to punishment in Thailand.

OTCC must be notified of certain merger activities.  The OTCC will be notified of merger activities that may cause a substantive reduction in competition prior to the merger, and the relevant financial statements will be continuously filed at the OTCC for it to monitor the effect of the merger for three consecutive years.

Criminal penalties will be adjusted.  There will be criminal penalties for certain violations of the Act. A fine may amount to 20 percent of a company’s revenue in the year of the violation. This has the potential to result in significantly higher fines. If there is a violation of the OTCC’s order, administrative sanctions may be imposed and the OTCC will determine the fine.

The OTCC, at its discretion, may decrease the fines imposed on business operators that are not the main actors in collusion or restriction of competition causing severe impact to the market, if they cooperate with the OTCC to provide substantial evidence of the violation.

State enterprises will be subject to the Act.  Under the current Act, state enterprises were immune from the provisions of the Act. Under the amended Act, however, they will not be immune unless they fall within exceptions that are granted to state enterprises in the fields of national security, public benefit, common interest, and public utility.

State enterprises that are subject to the Act and engage in anticompetitive practices may incur both criminal and civil penalties. This is because the private sector would be competing with these state enterprises.

The definition of “Market Dominant Operator” will be reviewed periodically. Under the existing Trade Competition Act, the criteria to be classified as a “Market Dominant Operator” (MDO) are as follows:

  • Any Business Operator in any particular goods or services market which has a market share in the previous year of 50 percent or more and has a sales turnover of at least THB 1 billion; or
  • Any Business Operator falling within the top three Business Operators in any particular goods or services market which together have a market share in the previous year of 75 percent and sales turnover of at least THB 1 billion (unless one of these three Business Operators has a market share in the previous year of lower than 10 percent or sales turnover of less than THB 1 billion).

Under the draft law, this longstanding definition of “Market Dominant Operator” (MDO) will be reviewed and revised at least once every five years. The OTCC is empowered to determine the criteria to be classified as an MDO.

If a Business Operator is classified as an MDO, its obligations and scrutiny under the Act would be higher. For example, Section 25 of the Act, which prohibits unreasonably fixing or maintaining purchase or sale prices of goods or fees for services, only applies to MDOs. Business Operators should therefore keep abreast of the Act’s amendments to determine whether or not they are classified as an MDO, as they may be subject to more provisions.

Companies face much heftier fines for violations of Thailand’s Trade Competition Act. Business owners should therefore ensure that they fully understand and comply with the amended Act. The OTCC is undergoing structural reform to increase its impartiality and independence in terms of personnel. The prospect of an increased budget for the OTCC is also on the horizon, which will enable the OTCC to more effectively enforce trade competition laws and regulations in Thailand.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Antitrust and Competition

Customs and International Trade

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

February 18, 2021
As you will no doubt know, on February 1, 2021, the Myanmar military declared a state of emergency in Myanmar for a period of one year. State Counsellor Daw Aung Sang Su Kyi was detained, as were the president and various significant political and civil leaders. Min Aung Hlaing, commander-in-chief of the Tatmadaw (Myanmar armed forces) has installed himself as chairman of the State Administration Council, the current administration. New sanctions The reaction of the Biden administration has been swift. On February 10, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 14014, which provides bases to impose sanctions on individuals and companies deemed by the US to, among other things: operate in the defense sector of Myanmar; be responsible for policies that undermine democratic processes in Myanmar; have taken actions to undermine democratic processes or institutions, or prohibit, limit, or penalize the exercise of free speech, in Myanmar; or be a spouse or child of the foregoing. On the next day, February 11, the US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), imposed sanctions under the new executive order on ten individuals—including General Min Aung Hlaing—and three companies, including Cancri Gems & Jewelry Co, Myanmar Imperial Jade Co, and Myanmar Ruby Enterprise.  All such individuals and companies have now been designated on the US list of specially designated nationals (SDNs). Effect of sanctions As a result of such sanctions, the property of these individuals or companies that is located in the US or is under the possession or control of US companies and citizens is frozen, and US companies and citizens are generally prohibited from dealing deal with any such property.  Reportedly, roughly USD 1 billion of funds belonging to the individuals and companies blocked on February 11 are located in the US and thus now frozen. The SDN list As many
Read More
February 1, 2021
Attorneys from Tilleke & Gibbins in Myanmar have contributed to the latest edition of Practical Law’s online Life Sciences Global Guide. The guide is a Q&A-style overview of the regulatory frameworks for the life sciences industry across multiple jurisdictions worldwide, and this year the Myanmar chapter includes two sections, one of which is “Pharmaceutical IP and Competition Law in Myanmar.” This section runs through the country’s legal and regulatory environment for patents and trademarks—particularly as they relate to pharmaceutical business in the jurisdiction. The section then turns to IP and competition law issues, with questions and answers focusing on how the country’s competition laws and regulations affect the pharmaceutical sector. Readers are also given information on how to properly comply with Myanmar law on competition, including when it comes to licensing of medicines and pharmaceutical technology. The full Pharmaceutical Intellectual Property and Competition Law in Myanmar guide can be accessed on the Practical Law website. Practical Law, produced by Thomson Reuters, is the world’s leading legal know-how resource for business lawyers, publishing a huge range of guides covering hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. Tilleke & Gibbins also supplied the “Medicinal Product Regulation and Product Liability in Myanmar,” which Practical Law published in its Life Sciences Global Guide  at the same time.
Read More
December 9, 2020
Thailand’s Trade Competition Commission (TCC) has issued new rules governing business relations between food delivery platform operators and the restaurants operating through those platforms. The guidelines identify various arrangements, that are sometimes imposed upon restaurants by digital platforms, as unfair and damaging to restaurant operators, and restrict them accordingly. This is the fourth time that the TCC has deemed it necessary to intervene in a specific industry by restricting certain unfair trade practices in accordance with the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (TCA), and is indicative of the TCC’s greater drive to quell unfair practices using its powers under the TCA. It also shows their willingness to react quickly to new developments in the market—in this case, the substantial increase in restaurant operators selling their products through online platforms in recent months. The Guidelines on Unfair Trade Practices between Digital Platform Operators for Food Delivery and Restaurants were published in the Government Gazette on November 23, 2020, and take effect on December 23, 2020. Key Definitions Digital platforms mean online services which establish a trade linkage between restaurant businesses, food deliverers, and consumers—in other words, applications or websites that allow consumers to use restaurants via food deliverers. Digital platform operators for food delivery means the business operators that provide digital platform services, acting as an intermediary to accept the purchase order and deliver food between restaurant operators, food delivery service providers, and consumers; or between restaurant operators and consumers in accepting the purchase order for food. Put simply, they are the companies operating food delivery platforms. Unfair Conduct  The main principle set forth in the TCC’s food delivery guidelines is that business conduct between food delivery platform operators and restaurant operators must respect the freedom of each party; must be fair, noncompulsory, and nondiscriminatory; and must not obstruct another
Read More
December 7, 2020
With virtually all business operations in Thailand affected by the fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic, the government has been keen to provide relief measures to limit the economic damage. In addition to implementing broad economic relief, this has also meant changes to the government’s own internal operations, and in recent months, the Public Procurement and Supplies Administration Ruling Committee has issued two circular letters prescribing guidelines on how government authorities should handle their procurement operations during this period. The circulars, which were issued under the Public Procurement and Supplies Administration Act B.E. 2560 (2017), detail the relief measures for government procurement contracts that cannot be fulfilled because of the disruptive effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Most significantly, the circulars clarify that the impact of COVID-19 should be deemed force majeure under government procurement contracts and government procurement law, which affects the penalties levied on contractors for late performance of required duties under government procurement contracts. The Ruling Committee specified the start of the force majeure period as March 26, 2020 (the date when the government first announced a nationwide state of emergency). This official designation enables contractors to cite disruption from COVID-19 when requesting additional time to perform their duties under a contract, or exemption from or reduction of penalties incurred due to the delay. For contracts that have not yet reached their maturity date, the Ruling Committee granted relief measures by directing the relevant government authorities to count the number of days that COVID-19 has affected performance of the contract, and use this number as the basis for determining an extension of the timeframe for performing the contractual duties. For contracts that have already reached their maturity date, the contractual party that failed to perform according to the contract would normally be subject to an assessed fine for
Read More